Wednesday, September 30, 2015

As September comes to a close, two significant dates converge for me: September 26 marked the one-year anniversary of the publication of my book, C. S. Lewis and the Crisis of a Christian, and today (September 30) signifies the completion of the 16-month grant project I've been directing, SEYA (Science for Students and Emerging, Young Adults). In my previous post, I offered an overview of SEYA's findings, and here I'd like to ask one more time: What did I learn, and does "St. Clive" (aka C. S. Lewis) have anything to add?With one long (perhaps even run-on) sentence, I'll summarize the strategy that emerged from this project:

As a result of SEYA, I’ve discovered that there is interest among emerging adults (ages 18-30) on how to integrate mere Christianity with mainstream science, and the strategy for this integration is to connect it with pressing life issues through a robust biblical hermeneutic, through relationships of trust, through skilled communicators, and through the use of high-quality and high-impact resources.

How do I evaluate the current "state of the question," as academics like to say? Is the integration of mere Christianity and mainstream science happening? Certainly, if we listen to Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, it's all for naught. But they may not have the full story. As Elaine Ecklund has discovered in her research--some of the most comprehensive to date:

"76 percent of scientists in the general population identify with a religious tradition" and "85 percent of Americans and 84 percent of evangelicals say modern science is doing good in the world."

Both the qualitative analysis of our SEYA surveys with target groups of approximately 100 emerging adults, as well as the two-dozen in-depth interviews I conducted, indicate that there is interest among 18-30 year olds and that high-quality resources makes a significant difference in emerging adults'
attitudes toward integrating Christian faith and mainstream science. (For you statisticians out there, the p-value on this sample group was .001.)I think we still need more skilled communicators who, first of all, employ a robust (and thus not literalistic) biblical hermeneutic. For one engaging example, see Dave Navarra (from the SEYA team) and Scott Farmer take on the topic, "Hasn't Science Disproved God?"Of course, we could simply go back to Augustine who insisted that Christians shouldn't ignorantly talk nonsense about astronomy and other fields in their exposition of the Bible. "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." (The longer quote is in the Endnote.) It's true--we can't be stuck in a biblical approach that ignores scientific insights. Though John Calvin could be about as hard-headed as they come, he never tired of learning from secular (i.e., non-Christian and non-biblical) writers, and he wrote quite pointedly on this all the way back in 1559,

“If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole
fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it
wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God."

We know that God created the world--and we properly worship our Creator as a result--but we can't be sure how God did it from Scripture, because, for one thing, the Bible doesn't address that issue.In fact, the Bible is concerned with something else entirely: our transformation as followers of Christ. As Lewis phrased it in Reflections on the Psalms, God's revelation in Scripture is not "something we could have tabulated and memorised and relied on like the multiplication table," as convenient as that would seem. This approach, however, is misguided. Instead Lewis presented one central component of a more robust, biblical hermeneutic:

Follow the intent of the text. Read what it says, not what you want it to say.

Instead of imbedding a math table in our brains, Lewis wrote, we take Jesus seriously and discover something unexpected:

"He will always prove the most elusive of teachers. Systems cannot keep up with that darting illumination. No net less wide than a man's whole heart, nor less fine of mesh than love, will hold the sacred fish."

And so, with Lewis in mind, I arrive at two elements of the strategy SEYA identified that we are still lacking: skilled communicators who present a sound approach to science and Scripture. I realize, of course, that Lewis wasn't perfect nor was he a scientist, but he did grasp the effects of science on the wider culture and expertly articulated mere Christianity in that cultural context. And so we could certainly use more of his ilk. He called it "translating" and left us with a question that has not been satisfactorily answered:

"People praise me for being a translator. But where are the others? I wanted to start a school of translation."

Where indeed are these translators who understand the glories, challenges, and intricacies of science and bring mere Christianity to a scientifically and technologically saturated age? Part of the work I've been about with SEYA is to identify these translators--and perhaps to become one myself--but there's much more left to do.

Endnote: Here's the full citation from Augustine's Literal Meaning of Genesis (Bk. 1, ch. 19): "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Here's the main question? What's the best way to engage emerging adults
(approximately age 18-30) in the integration of science and faith? (By faith we mean both the content of faith or
theology and the practice of Christian faith, or Christian life. When faith is
used here, it is intended to mean Christian faith. Sometimes the authors quoted
will use religion, which for the
purposes of this section, is essentially equivalent)

The
method used for this analysis of emerging adults’ attitudes on faith and
science is fourfold: we first reviewed the influential literature in the field
(e.g., Jeffrey Arnett, Jonathan Hill, David Kinnaman, Christian Smith, Robert Wuthnow—see references at the end). Second, our SEYA team
members talked about the integration of science and faith in various venues with approximately
300 emerging adults in targeted contexts, during which we engaged in informal
conversations with the participants. Third, we surveyed targeted focus groups
to gather statistical data and analysis on these emerging adults’ attitudes on
faith and science. Fourth, Greg Cootsona filled out this research with
in-depth, one-hour qualitative interviews with eighteen emerging adults. (And a note on style: This post will use “we” when referring the SEYA team will
employ “I” when it reflects the particular views of none other than Greg Cootsona.) In what
follows, we excerpt (and abbreviate) two key sections from the SEYA white
paper: the analysis of problems and the strategy for addressing these problems.

There
are at least four main problems (or sets of problems) facing the integration of
science and faith for emerging adults.

Perception
of conflict: Young adults
perceive that Christian faith is in conflict with science (and vice versa, to
some degree). They may not actually believe in this conflict themselves, but
they hear about it through various media. According Smith and Longest, 70%
of 18-23 year olds “agree” or “strongly agree” that the statement that the
teachings of religion and science conflict (Longest and Smith 2011, 846-69,
especially 854). In addition, the discussion on the Internet is largely
critical and hostile toward religious faith. E.g., as one post stated: “The
Internet will kill religion.” And another opined: “Jesus will soon go the way
of Zeus and Osiris.” Another key problem here is that emerging adults don’t
seem to be aware of the key voices for integration, such as Francis Collins or
Alister McGrath.

A great deal of this discussion
centers around the epistemologies of these two ways of knowing: in the
polemics, science deals with facts and evidence; religion with inner feelings,
but nothing that can be tested. Important to add here is that this is often
more a perception of conflict based on an older, positivist view of science. Contemporary
philosophy of science often builds on nuanced sources, two of the most
persuasive are Imre Lakatos’s model or “research programmes” (Lakatos 1970,
91-106) and Peter Lipton’s “inference to the best explanation” (Lipton 2004).
In addition, Jonathan Hill in BigQuestions online(Hill 2015) has
demonstrated that some perceive conflict because some they see religion and science
in different domains that shouldn’t overlap, or for various specific domains
and not issues of general epistemological conflict, and only about one-third of
this “conflict” group, because they side with either religion or with science
and see no ultimate integration. In sum, although a conflict may be
perceived—which is certainly a challenge for integration—there are various
reasons.

Disconnection
from lived experience: The topic
of science and religion seems disconnected from pressing life issues and
therefore appears heady, perhaps taking too much effort. When asked about
science and religion, there’s often a sense of “How does this relate to my
life?” Or “That’s a topic for thinkers, not for me.” The American context
places an enormous weight on how we feel
and what we’ve experienced. In some ways, this is a part of our
marketing-advertising culture. In another, it’s a legacy of religious revivalism,
which privileged “heart” (emotions) over “head” (thinking). It is also evidenced
today in the “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” noted by Smith in Souls in Transition (Smith 2009, 154-6 and here when commenting on teens).
“Science,” as a topic is often perceived as more abstract than technology
(e.g., smart phones, social media).

Ancient faith, modern problems: Speaking specifically of relating Christian faith and science, the
Bible seems outdated and unscientific. This problem partly stems from
emerging adults’ decreasing engagement with books generally and any ancient
text specifically. More importantly, ancient religious texts seem outdated and
unscientific because religious knowledge seems to always look back and
therefore stagnates. In contrast, scientific knowledge and technology looks
forward; they advance and improve. Any beta-tested software pales in comparison
to version 2.0 or beyond.

Pluralism
and decisions: Today’s emerging
adults encounter a dizzying array of voices. This makes it difficult to make
decisions. One such decision is where
to look to integrate faith and science. This changes the locus for the discussion.Many emerging adults would rather do a
Google search than go than go to a congregation in pursuing of answers about
science and religion. With the panoply of options on the Internet and the
contemporary world, there are so many decisions for emerging adults that they
become “choice phobic” (according to SEYA’s panel of experts in the field) and
are unable to make a decision about how to integrate science and faith. Similarly,
it’s hard to decide on one form of faith in light of all the possibilities even
for Christian spirituality and theology, which makes it difficult to know what form
of faith to bring to science. This fact is partly the simple problem of
pluralism, which has become exacerbated by the explosion of knowledge on the
Internet. But it is also a broadening cultural pluralism that also affects the
Church.

We recommended the following strategy for addressing these problems.

Significant
Interest: The good news, and the central opportunity, for emerging adults’
integrating faith and science is that there is interest. The work that has been
done with Scientists in Congregations (SinC) and with SEYA indicates that there are real opportunities for this integration. In qualitative
interviews, we’ve found remarkable curiosity in how to bring these together.
Put another way, positivistic science has not entirely won the day, and few
people adhere to such a position. (Jonathan Hill, in a personal conversation,
estimates this constituency at around one-sixth.) In addition, In the first set
of study data collected in spring 2015, a total p-value of .001 was given to a greater
appreciate for the integration of science and religion based on an intervention
of listening to speakers and engaging intellectually richcontent
on science and religion.

Pressing
life issues will have to be a part of this dialogue because emerging adults
today tend toward pragmatism over theoretical speculation. This fact may speak
to a focus on technology and ethics over issues of pure science. E.g., does
being “wired in” to my smart phone bring anxiety? More speculative and
theoretical is this:“Does quantum
physics offers a place for divine action? In addition, one implication is that we
will have to broaden the discussion. As important as “evolution and creation”
has been, is, and will continue to be, we need to expand the conversation to
include, for example, the love for the natural world that Christian faith gives
us (e.g., Psalm 19, 104; Romans 1:1920), which is the basis for the scientific
endeavor. Most scientists have enjoyed some life-changing encounter with the
natural world that led them into their vocation. Belief in the God who creates
the natural world leads Christians to observe and enjoy nature. (Incidentally,
other topics of relevance include neuroscience and the soul, global climate
change and sustainability more broadly, and the calling of Christians in the
sciences.)

A more
robust biblical hermeneutic: In order to respond to the issue of ancient
texts and their contemporary relevance, a great deal depends on how one looks
at the Bible. To paraphrase a popular creationist ministry, what “answers” are
in Genesis? John Calvin commented in his Institutes
2.2.15, “If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we
shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear,
unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God.”
One reason for teaching on science and its relation to Christian faith is that
we need to learn natural science and follow it. For this reason, a creation in six
twenty-four hour days is untenable if Christians want to take on mainstream
science. Indeed and paradoxically, it probably requires a conviction that
science is not the sole arbiter of truth, and that our biblical interpretation
is about learning to live within the narrative of the Scripture, to let God’s
story become our story, as it were. We don’t memorize the Bible as we do the
Periodic Table, but “by steeping ourselves in its tone and temper and so
learning its overall message” (Lewis 1958, 112).

Relationships and group identity make the interaction about
religion and science possible. As a collaborator on this project once told me, “We
engage people
with
arguments, not arguments in abstraction.” Setting up programs, like SinC, that
bring scientists who are part of a community in contact with emerging adults is
critical. Here I return to Jonathan Hill’s work, who noted that friends and
family (and pastors for Christians) are critical for opening oneself to explore
mainstream science. The importance of trust (which arose during the April 2015
Fuller Convening of SEYA emerging adult thought leaders) also highlights the
need for “the endorser”: a trusted voice in one’s key group that affirms the
need and promise for integrating religion and science. This is related to
finding skilled communicators below, but may not be the skilled communicators
themselves. For example, endorsement of science by a senior pastor’s or a
trusted scientist’s positive comments on integrating science with Christian
faith can have an extremely positive effect. They may make the integration of Christian
faith with evolution a viable endeavor. One related problem, however, is that
emerging adults do not have many ready-made structures that can be found with
other demographics, such as youth. So it will take effort to locate these
trusted voices.

Cultivate more
high-quality and high-impact resources: Books are not entirely dead, but
online video and an engaging website are essential. The emerging adult culture,
nurtured on rich video content, needs visual media for communication. In
addition, the importance of scaling
any work done in this context so that any resources can be expanded and
well-utilized. This ability to scale will naturally involve the best minds and
practices that have worked in similar arenas. Accordingly—and as a complement
to the importance of trusted Christian leaders—we recommend the continued development
of a robust website for faith and science (e.g., BioLogos) that will speak to emerging adults,
which is maintained regularly and which is marketed through social media
channels.

Finds ways
to resourcereligious communities—and
particularly skilled communicators—whether in congregations or parachurch
organizations, who are effective in reaching 18-30 year olds and who are
interested in bringing science to faith and who know both theology and
science.Find locations where these
their effects will multiply such as key churches and/or campus ministries,
academic or cultural centers. Ideally, this would mean that we could find
communicators that possessed degrees in science, or were even themselves,
working scientist. This ideal, however is not the reality. Most of those who
lead emerging adult ministries will be learning science as an avocation and as
a component of their wider ministry skills. Here we follow Andrew Root and Erik Leafblad’s “Teaching at the Intersection of Faith and Science” (Root and Leafblad 2015): First of
all, become knowledgeable about the ways that science creates emerging adults’
reality. Second, get to know local scientists—in this case, at local
universities. Finally, realize, that some answers lie beyond the reach of
science. At some point, this integration with science may lead to a realization
that there are limits to scientific insight and discovery and faith and wonder
in the God beyond the natural world is the only reasonable conclusion.

References and Selected Bibliography

Arnett,
Jeffrey. 2000. “Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development From the Late Teens
Through the Twenties.” American
Psychologist 55: 469-480.